Game music, part 1

Games have music. Most of the game's climate is generated by audio; quality of playing also varies depending on it, so let's just say that music is a very important part of any game. It also plays almost exactly the same role in the movie industry, and even the same people start to create both.


Game and film music's role is primarily to create a background, set the viewer in proper mood, but sound is also a piece of artistic work. I require my game and movie music also to be good for listening separated from the product it is made for. Most fail at this task, as they become boring, often only thing they communicate is epicness and that makes them trivial.

More on Tetris

So much interest on the tetris jokes has made me think about on the subject. Firstly because some of you might have missed out on those russian duel cartoons, one of which features tetris (maybe I should call it the tetris machine - it's not disappearing levels that are fighting) . You can watch or re-watch it here:

I looked up some more funny tetris pics:

Joke themes

Jokes on the same subject tend to gain depth or funniness if presented together, so I joined together some xkcd's (also I needed an excuse to share them, as they're in my top100 of the ~900 he published.

Expanding or limiting fps games:

Also the one I posted on Jokes and Violence belongs here.

Nacho

Warning: this post is not about mexican food. If you are so desperate that you try to read about food then just eat some. If you read about food because you ate so much you can explode, but still think about food, then eat some more. Now, if we have that sorted out, let's get on with the subject.

For the last couple of days I felt too philosophical to think or write about games, I thought of something else instead and decided to put it on paper (and by paper I mean blog). Another warning: this post is mostly about men.

Part one: macho.

There is the macho stereotype - a man determined to posess and present some classically male, testosteronic  qualities like physical strenght, but more importantly, is overly competitive against other males and his attitude towards women is sex-oriented (unless of course our macho is gay, but let's forget about that possibility for now). That brings us to my two-point macho definition:
1. Macho's main purpose is to be an alpha male.
2. In his pursuit of said purpose, he is most likely to employ traditional means (physical qualities) and views (conservative).

Macho's hypocrisy: as a conservative, a macho typically wants a virgin-type woman (in the virgin-whore dichotomy) as his wife, which leaves his raging sexuality basically unattended. In order to have both a sex life and a family life as he likes it, he separates them, trying to engage in multiple romantic relations, often, but not necessarily sticking to just one family (it's probably related to the known fact that a secret family is harder to hide than a secret lover).

For further opinions and a little information look up macho, machismo or marianismo in wikipedia.

Part two: nerd.

To me, the word 'nerd' seems strictly attached to US culture, in which I don not participate, so I speak of nerd portrayals I have seen in films/tv and of nerd-like type of people I have seen within my own, polish culture (ha ha ha poland!). Also for this post I will be using a wide definition of the term 'nerd', which means that my nerds do not have to be interested in computer science (they're nerds not geeks), but tend to be socially and physically awkward, to be interested in some scientific or intelligence-based activity as well as having hobbies regarded as childish by typical others (I hope no specification is required). Again, visiting wikipedia's page for 'nerd' can provide further info and some background if needed.

Part three: nacho or maerd.

It stuck me recently, that I have not met as many machos and nerds as one could expect, but instead I often find something between them. A combination of opposites, a nacho - or a maerd (I cannot decide between these two names; nacho is lovable due to the food association, and also refers to latin origin of the word 'macho', while maerd looks a little celtic and sounds almost like french word for shit). Nacho's ambition is to be(come) an alpha male, but he does not stick to exploiting physical qualities in order to achieve that goal. His education can range from plain high school through technical up to PhD in science or in liberal arts. A typical maerd can be a historian or a surveyor, but could also be a bank analyst. He's not unfit, but also isn't muscular; he manifests his traditional male role mostly by fixing and adjusting stuff; he tries to present it as the most manly quality and does not attempts direct physical domination of other males. Most of the time, a maerd is right-wing, embracing both the socially conservative and the economically liberal parts, but I've seen some specimen with socialist attitude towards economy or even socially liberal (but always in a manner that would serve them). Maerds are the people who have many hobbies, and who advertise hobbies in general ("do something with your life, find out what are you interested in").

Part four: where I stand.

Nachos repulse me as much as machos do, or even a bit more, but I'm afraid they're the type of man most likely to start a family. After all, they almost always manage to acquire a steady,, at-least-average income as they manage to build a widely understandable (but challenging to many) image of self-superiority. My personal problem with them is that they do not acknowledge the existence of people too compicated for hobbies. They are the intelectual extension of the non-intelectual, typical, plain, simply competitive, brutal world. They also share the said world's love towards judging everyone else.

Part five: interaction.

I'm really sorry that you had to read all that, but am happy to announce that you have almost reached the end. I only want to ask you, how you feel about maerds (nachos) - do you know people matching the description, do you like them, are you them or are they your life partner? Do you know any professional texts on the subject that I should be aware of (I freely admit that I only spoke my mind without being a member of the sociology guild)? Do you have a comment that does not fit any of the above questions (:D)? Which name do you prefer: nacho or maerd? Or maybe would you like to propose your own?

P.S.: I chose the name 'nacho' as prime, because I wanted to write the first paragraph.

Dream game

Being a little bored and a little depressed I didn't feel like talking to anybody yesterday, so I drifted about wikipedia articles about some interesting places and times. Soon enough it turned into reading about ancient conflicts, subject I used to love as a kid (Mithradates VI was such a badass), and that had to lead to a desire to conquer something once more. Having no such opportunity anymore, I could just reminisce about the beautiful times when I had been playing Medieval: Total War. It was the second and last game of the total war series I have played, it's hard for me to believe it's already ten years old. It had many successors and even a sequel, so probably nowadays nobody remebers or is interested in it. The whole total war series is renowned mostly for its battle engine, which allows quite realistic real-time battles with large quantities of soldiers, but I cared more for the campaign engine, since it was turn-based. One turn could take me a long time (tens of minutes, maybe even above an hour), spent on deciding what forces to send where.

For me it was more rewarding to plan a good military campaign and lead to battles computer could easily win for me than winning these (often epic) battles myself - at least in time it became so. It just seemed more real, just as a king of a big country should rather send generals to battles and oversee the whole at all times. But having absolute control over a country for hundreds of years gives such a big advantage that it's child's play to conquer everything the game offers for conquering. For many years I have longed for a game that would present the ruler's struggle for maintaining support of major powers within their country, dealing with succession issues and other political problems on top of the usual country control offered by games, and all that within the limited time of your ruling/life.

I don't even know if such a game exists or not, since I don't really follow the market for some years now. Before complete moratorium on gaming I've been investing less and less time, money and attention towards it, focusing mostly on 'games I have to play one more time' and not the new ones.

I not interested in playing anymore, but just for satisfying my curiosity, can anyone tell me if said game has been made?

The Warcraft evolution

On the presented screenshots you can see W1, then W2 and W3. Each of those screenshots shows player's base and I didn't differentiate expansion packs, since they didn't provide any significant change. I think it's safe to say that w1 looks crude - very little detail, terrain all the same. W2 is much improved - terrain looks a little less all the same and there are more types of it to choose from, units and buildings are full of details, as much as resolution allows it. With w3 a lot changes, since now we're in 3D environment, gameplay change is more significant than from w1 to w2 (heroes, recalculated economy).

Now, w3 is almost a different game type than w1 - the general idea remains the same, but it doesn't feel the same. Some important differences:

1. Fonts. W1 has everything written in capital letters, whilst it's successors offer normal writing. It adds crudeness.
2. Notice the increase in alignment marks (colored elements) throughout the series. In w1 you basically see buildings that are someone's base, in w3 you see someone's base that is composed of buildings.
3. This is only partially visible on these screens, but you know it's right: the icons get shinier, the objects on them exaggerated, buildings start as buildings, but in time they become more statue-like, more distinctive-looking, but less real (if this adjective could ever be used in reference to any warcaft product)
4. In w1 there are just 2 races fighting each other, but from w2 they are great alliances consisting of 5 races, and from w3 there's a total racial pandemonium.
5. Sounds. In w1 and w2 they're recorded without special effects, they're plain, but creative. In w3 they're there's more effect than sound and it's boring.
6. Most important: roads! In w1 you built road to expand your village and connect it, and you built walls around your village. No towers, just clever wall-building and tactics. In w2 and w3 you can (with some exceptions) build anywhere on the map, so in w2 your base is a set of loosely standing buildings ranging as far as the terrain under your control. In w3 it can go either way, but there is no roadbuilding option.

Conclusion: w1 was a game about building your village and defeating rival village, it depicted something. W3 is primarily a multiplayer game aimed at providing some visual representation of a sporting event, that is a w3 match. And also to attract young age players, who like all the demon-dragon, shiny and colorful magic world-destroying (and saving) mayhem, who need all uits to be special, interesting and likeable - unlike real military units, which are plain, stupid and definitely not likeable.

Now I'd like to mention that I do not consider w3 worse game than w1, even though I miss the w1 kind of games, which had mostly died, I think. The roadbuilding and beautiful villages were absorbed by town-development games like settlers, knights & merchants or anno 1602 and their sequels (but don't get me started on settlers above 2). W3 achieved its goal of being very enjoyable and fair multiplayer game and I loved owning people in it (I almost liked being owned too). WoW shall not be spoken of on my blog, not now, not ever. Unless I'll have some interesting thoughts about it, of course.

Time for some lame pun: the best way to get completely stoned is to drink liquid concrete.

Situations

I've been neglecting the whole blogging world lately, and, frankly, all the other worlds too. For some time now I have been dealing with a family illness issue, the whole 'people who raised you dying' thing. Writing this blog has provided a nice distraction for me, but there are days when you don't need distraction, but to decide something. And lately there are more and more days completely filled with making errands for my whole family as I am the only healthy person with a driving licence.

But I often play games in my dreams. It was the same when I was quitting smoking - I dreamt that I had forgotten about quitting and smoked, and then felt guilt (still in dream). My friends also had such dreams when they were quitting, so I guess it's a good thing now.

One last piece of thought: if there is a person who wouldn't get depressed by their friend or close relative dying, it's probably me. I care about people, but I'm okay with death, probably even more than with life. But it has so many aspects and accompanying events/situations that the whole package is almost bound to depress anyone, even me. So unless your parents will die suddenly in their sleep or you really hate them, don't expect to go through their death unconcerned. Or maybe you will? Or already did? We're thought to be all different after all.